Librarians Association of the University of California
Fall Assembly, December 11, 1998
Room 522, Library, University of California, San Francisco

MINUTES

LAUC President, K. Lucas, called the Assembly to order at 10:00 a.m.
K. Lucas introduced the LAUC officers and the Parliamentarian, Richard Vierich.
The Assembly approved the agenda without amendments.
K. Lucas thanked to the local arrangements person, Min-Lin (Emily) Fang, with the applause of the Assembly.
K. Lucas presented a commemorative plaque along with many thanks to Past President Lucia Snowhill. (applause)
K. Lucas introduced UCSF Acting University Librarian Karen Butter, who extended the welcome of the campus to the Assembly. In her remarks she spoke of the present as an age of transition, particularly addressing the current transition in libraries to digital forms of information.

Announcements: K. Lucas

The local arrangements people were invited to give useful information.
The name of the advisory committee (of the University Librarians advisory structure), HOS (Heads of Systems) has been changed to LTAG Library Technology Advisory Group).
The LAUC website is accessible at the UCOP (University of California Office of the President) webpage (http://www.ucop.edu/lauc), with links to divisions, etc.

Roll Call of the divisions and delegates:

Berkeley: Andrea Sevetson (Chair), Barbara Glendenning, Michaelyn Burnette, Marlene Harmon
Davis: Buzz Haughton (Chair), Carol LaRussa, John Ward
Irvine: Catherine Palmer (Chair), Yvonne Wilson, Ellen Broidy
Los Angeles: Stephen Fry (Chair), Marion Peters, Lise Snyder, Katalin Radics
Riverside: Juliet McLaren (Chair), Jack Cooper, Nancy Koller
San Diego: Barbara Slater (Chair), Richard Lindemann, Craig Haynes
San Francisco: Julia Kochi (Chair), Min-Lin Fang
Santa Barbara: Sherry DeDecker (Chair), Janet Martorana
Santa Cruz: Deborah Murphy (Chair), Sue Chesley

Report of the Secretary:

The Assembly approved the minutes as submitted from the Spring Assembly, May 1, 1998.

Report of the President:

1. The Library Council has been reorganized as of July 1, 1998 into several groups. New groups include SLASIAC (Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee) and SOPAG (Systemwide Operations and Planning Advisory Group). LAUC representatives to these groups are ex officio non-voting members of the LAUC Executive Board.

2. For the Assembly meeting, motions relating to a committee report will be entertained at the time the report is presented. This way the motion will be closer to the agenda item to which it is related.

3. Standing committees are just getting started with their work. Most chairs are not present. G. Peete and L. Kennedy will present reports on the activity of SLASIAC and SOPAG, respectively. The Committee on Professional Governance will also report.

Presentation of Reports of LAUC Representatives to Systemwide Groups

1. Report on SLASIAC: Gary Peete. SLASIAC is not like the Library Council. It includes deans, ULs, Richard Lucier and administrators, will meet more often, deals with high-level policy, is a sounding board. Peete's role is informational, to present LAUC point of view. Agendas are not appearing soon enough before meetings to get input from LAUC; he must improvise. Next major item of interest will be copyright. The previous item was collection support, but no action came out of it. LAUC can ask him to submit agenda items.

A motion to file the report was made and seconded. The motion passed.

2. Report on SOPAG: Linda Kennedy(serving on the LAUC Executive Board as an ex officio member. This is a very active group, a business-conducting body, with monthly meetings. Next meeting is Jan. 8. A joint meeting is also scheduled with the ULs. Action minutes are distributed to each campus. The CDL newsletter is available and is very informative. Chairs should give Kennedy's email address to members for questions, etc. Within a monthly meeting structure, she can't represent LAUC's opinion on matters before the committee but can refer back to the Board as needed.. There are committees on electronic cataloging, patron-initiated request, etc. People should get in touch with her if they are not being heard.
In response to a question from L. Snowhill, L. Kennedy replied that the connection between SOPAG and the ULs group was not clear. SOPAG is dealing mainly with the operational side of CDL and Systemwide. It was asked if the MELVYL users group has been disbanded. It has been replaced by groups with broader responsibility, dealing with the total user situation, not just MELVYL, and going beyond even UC; e.g. the CDL, and the Library of California.

A motion to file the report was made and seconded. The motion passed.

4. Other reports (Committees on Collection Development, Heads of Public Services, and Heads of Technical Services; and the Library Technology Advisory Group): representatives are not present. K. Lucas suggested a motion to file the reports, unless there are questions. A. Sevetson (UCB) asked if the name change from HOS (Heads of Systems) to LTAG (Library Technology Advisory Group) implied a change of charge. K. Lucas will ask Hannah Walker. The name came with a new charge. HOPS is undergoing a similar change. L. Kennedy mentioned that each group was asked to say what its charge was.

A motion to file the other systemwide reports was made and seconded. The motion passed.

Presentation of LAUC Committee Reports

K. Lucas discussed the work of the committees. Some are just getting started. She discussed the timing of the committee charges. Committees all have standing charges; some are also given specific charges. The work is chiefly done between the Fall and Spring Assemblies rather than throughout the year. For the next cycle, K. Lucas and Vice President P. Inouye will work to distribute the load more evenly. Divisions should discuss the work with committee representatives. No bylaws change is needed. Attention was called to the standing charges, which tend to be disregarded when a committee is not given an additional charge. The comment was made that there is no reason why a committee cannot continue working and have more continuity throughout the year. Chairs can appoint the new committee members earlier. K. Lucas: this is true. Reminders are needed. Downsizing has caused a loss of institutional memory in recent years.

A motion to file the statewide committee reports, exclusive of the report of the Committee on Professional Governance (CPG) was made and seconded. The motion passed.

Miki Goral, LA (for Heidi Hutchinson, R) briefly presented the report of the CPG. Questions and discussion followed. G. Peete asked if the report is ready to go forward as is. M. Goral replied that this is a matter for discussion. The comment was made that the need now is to get the report moving rather than further tinkering. Answer: agreed. We have the data we need. L. Kennedy stressed that this is a good time to present it. UCOP is ready to look at it. She inquired about M. Okada's reaction. K. Lucas said that Mr. Okada could not come to the Assembly. She summarized his remarks from the Executive Board meeting. M. Okada thought that the report was well done and professional, and UCOP was impressed by it. The statistics on recruitment / retention are better than his own. D. Murphy asked him what worked with the AUL increase. Cost of living is not an effective factor; retention is. The raise given the programmer/analysts was also discussed. Power is local, and there are political factors involved. It is not enough just to send the report in. The UL's and Executive Vice Chancellors on each campus are crucial in the decision-making process.

M. Goral: the SIMS issue relates to this. She also mentioned a job recruitment for an LA IV to create a departmental library. A. Sevetson (UCB) commented that the AULs raised the issue of librarian salaries several years ago, without telling LAUC; they compiled no statistical support. J. McLaren (UCR) said that we need to get in touch with the convener of the EVCs, also of the ULs, and to get their agenda. The Continuing Education Specialists kept pushing and got outside political support. M. Goral commented on the demise of the Library Council-LAUC as a group has been shunted aside. G. Peete reemphasized the need to lobby local ULs, Vice Chancellors. Even if LAUC makes a good case, it could be put off as a collective bargaining issue; openers are not until 2000. We have the information now, so must act.

D. Murphy (UCSC) emphasized the need for a cover letter as summary of the report. B. Slater (UCSD) pointed out that M. Okada had said that the fiscal and political landscape is more favorable now than in the past; there is a window of opportunity with contract openers. Further discussion covered such points as the financial implications of moving the barrier (Librarian V); this varies on each campus. D. Murphy mentioned that those in the middle of the range are also concerned for a range adjustment. M. Goral mentioned an instance of a colleague who moved to another position; she showed the salary scale to her UL. His comment was "We have to pay more for computer people"; she replied, "But why do you think they were recruiting me?" Librarians are doing this work (without being compensated); ULs don't know this. J. Cooper (UCR) stressed that we must move now. ULs wonder why we haven't done something already.

J. McLaren (UCR): the Administration wants a balanced structure; they do not want to move people out of the Librarian series. A. Sevetson (UCB): the need is to educate campus administration as to what we are doing. Computers are part of our work. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by manning reference desks, etc. G. Peete mentioned the large contribution to the systems office by librarians, but systems gets the credit for it.

A motion was made and seconded to continue discussion on the CPG report afterlunch. The motion was passed.

B. Slater (UCSD) asked if statistics on financial impact were available. A. Goral: figures were prepared but not included in the report, so as not to confuse the issue. N. Koller (UCR) commented on procedure of presenting report. It should not be done by a regular LAUC committee-there is a need to work closely with administration, etc. Further comments: relevant points to stress include losing people to AUL and other series (so that they are paid more anyway), data on retention, career path, growth, rewards (A. Sevetson); career path point can weaken argument if put at beginning-the path could be expanded by adding time at each step (E. Broidy, UCI). M. Goral responded that normally longer step intervals have porportionally larger increases. G. Peete: what counts, per M. Okada, is retention, not cost of living. The arguments that worked for faculty did not include cost of living. Other comments: must move report; there are supplementary ideas that can be added later; cost of recruitment also noted (as effect of difficulty in retaining people); encouragement by M. Okada to approach campus authorities.

Discussion continued following the lunch break.

How to determine training cost as a negative financial factor in poor retention? B. Haughton (UCD) commented that this could be found by searching library literature.
S. Fry (UCLA) moved the following resolution:
"Whereas the Professional Governance Committee has worked diligently to provide a comprehensive and well-designed report, and
"Whereas the Committee has presented a cogent summary of the inequities in the Librarian series and salaries, and
"Whereas the Committee has provided excellent historical and comparative documentation for their recommendations,
"Therefore, be it resolved that LAUC extends heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the Committee for their excellent report to the 1998 Fall Assembly."

The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

A. Sevetson (UCB) moved to file the report of the CPG. The motion was seconded and passed.

K. Lucas explained that filing means that the report is advisory, to be used any way the organization wants. Motions can be made relating to the action to be taken on the recommendations in the report.

A. Sevetson (UCB) presented a motion providing for a LAUC delegation to initiate discussion with UCOP to request a restructuring of the Librarian series in view of the inadequacies identified in the CPG report, and for LAUC to pursue other means to this end, including on the divisional level. The motion was seconded.

Discussion followed. The resolution need not specify points to be included in the cover letter. Other points: inclusion of a deadline in the resolution; President can report on action at the Executive Board meeting in March; K. Lucas hopes to form delegation by Feb. 1; possible inclusion of divisions in delegation; the motion gives the intentions to be pursued, implementation can be addressed after passage of motion (R. Lindemann, UCSD); K. Lucas's intention is to execute this as rapidly as possible, the Assembly may amend to add a date if desired. L. Kennedy suggested that ULs, past Presidents, committee representatives, etc. be included in the delegation. A time frame (deadline) is less critical than to start lobbying, get UL support, etc.

C. Palmer (UCI) offered an amendment to change the delegation to an ad hoc committee. The point of order was raised that this would require delegates from each campus. K. Lucas on consulting the bylaws found this not to be correct. Discussion followed. K. Lucas: a delegation would have more latitude than a committee. Pursuit of the Academic Senate is up to each campus. The amendment was withdrawn.

Following amendments to the wording, the motion stood as follows: "I move that a delegation representing the Librarians Association of the University of California be appointed by the President by February 1, 1999, for the purpose of initiating and pursuing discussion with the UC Office of the President to request that the Librarian series be restructured to correct the inadequacies identified in the Report of the LAUC Professional Governance Committee, dated December 11th, 1998. The LAUC Executive Board and LAUC Divisions are also hereby directed to urgently seek the support of the University Librarians and campus administrators for the revision of the Librarian series. I further move that the LAUC Executive Board pursue other avenues as appropriate for implementation of the report."

The motion was passed as amended.

M. Goral asked about distribution of the motion. K. Lucas will send it out and have it posted to the website. The report can be linked to the website. The HTTP address should be included when the motion is distributed.

New Business

P. Inouye issued the second call for research proposals. The deadline is January 15. Divisional chairs should remind their campuses.
K. Lucas acknowledged seven past LAUC Presidents that were present.
Appointment of time and place of the next Assembly. J. Cooper(UCR) extended invitation of campus. The Spring Assembly will be at UC Riverside, May 26, 1999.
S. Fry (UCLA) called for acknowledgmeent for the Parliamentarian. (applause)
J. McLaren brought up the UCOL (Universitywide Committee On Libraries) and their coming meeting on January 14. K. Lucas addressed this. The UCOL meeting will be at Riverside, including a joint meeting with the ULs. The call is out for agenda items. The divisions should talk to their ULs in advance of the meeting; also to the chairs of the Academic Senate library committees (S. DeDecker, UCSB).

Palmer (UCI) offered a motion of thanks for the local arrangements. The motion was seconded and passed.

K. Lucas called for a motion of adjournment. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the Assembly. The motion passed.

The Assembly was adjourned at 1:58 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,
James Larrabee
LAUC Secretary
February 25, 1999
revised 9/15/99